DOCSLIB.ORG

MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Much Good

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Much Good MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Money is like manure. Unless you spread it around, it doesn't do much good NutrientsNutrients ofof PrimaryPrimary ConcernConcern NitrogenNitrogen --NN PhosphorusPhosphorus -- PP P Transport To Surface Waters Soil Surface Soluble P (Dissolved) Particulate P (Sediment) R unoff ~ 1/2 - 1“ Soil/Water Soil Mixing Zone Dissolved P vs. 0 to 2-Inch Soil Test P adapted from Sharpley et al. 1994. JEQ 23:437-451 1.6 1.4 Grassland, r 2 = 0.62 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Cropland, r 2 = 0.85 0.2 Grassland, r 2 = 0.90 Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Mehlich 3 Soil test P, lb/A Tillage D P PP Total DP Total PP Intensity Concentration Loss (lb/A) Reduced ? Conventional ? DP = Dissolved P PP = Particulate P Several Studies Indicate That Up To 90% Of Annual P Loading May Come From Less Than 10% Of Landscape (Heathwaite et al., 1998) P Threshold Approach • Critical soil test levels established above which P applications are prohibited or restricted • Critical soil test levels based on water quality criteria ? P Threshold Approach •Advantages – Simple, understandable and easy to implement – Based on water quality (hopefully) – Much better than agronomic response soil test approach •Disadvantages – Assumes all of landscape has equal environmental sensitivity – Does not consider P transport – Developed mainly for manure management – Does not address cultural management of soils – Based on limited data Critical STP Values State Level Method -- mg/kg -- AR 150 Mehlich 3 CO 100 AB-DTPA DE 120 Mehlich 1 KS 100-200 Bray 1 OH 150 Bray 1 OK 130 Mehlich 3 WI 75 Bray 1 TX 200 A&M Source: Daniel et al., 1998; http://ces.soil.ncsu.edu/sera17/ Kansas Department of Agriculture (1) Input Form for Nutrient Utilization Plan Worksheet DATE: GENERAL INFORMATION: Producer: Me CROP ROTATION: Year* Crop Yield % of max County: Ness Field ID: 1 Previous: 2000 Corn xxx applied** Initial: 2001 Corn 170 100% Category: 18 Crop Acres in Field: 0 2002 Corn 170 100% 2003 Corn 170 100% Max Soil Test P Level (ppm): 200 Estimated Annual Swine 2004 Corn 170 100% Waste for Application 2005 Corn 170 100% KDHE Permit Number (Tons or Gallons) * Previous is the year prior to the initiall year of the plan. or KDHE Application No: 123 1,000 ** Percent of maximum manure allowed,ed, projected to be applied. TYPE OF IRRIGATION: SOIL ANALYSIS: None (dryland) x Mark an "x" in the box Soil Type Testing Method Depth NO3 - N ppm P ppm Center Pivot that most closely Check Appropriate Box "x" Check Appropriate Box 0 - 6" 6618 Dragline/inject identifies your system Sandy Soil Bray-1 x 6 - 12" xxx Traveling Gun Med & Fine Texture x Mehlich-3 12 - 18" xxx Flood Olsen 18 - 24" xxx MANURE ANALYSIS (from your report) -- liquid or solid solid MANURE BOOK VALUES* SWINE WASTE INFORMATION: Nutrient mg/kg ppm lbs/acre-in lbs/ton N** Waste Characteristics: Mark an "x" in appropriateopriate box below ((one only) Total N 12000 12000 0 24.0 Solid, Without Bedding - Incorporated (within 24 hours) Organic N 8500 8500 0 17.0 P2O5** Solid, Without Bedding - Surface applied x NH4-N 3500 3500 0 7.0 Solid, With Bedding - Incorporated (within 24 hours)urs) NO3-N 0 000.0 * Enter these values only Solid, With Bedding - Surface applied P2O5 11000 11000 0 22.0 if you do not have manure Liquid Pit, Incorporated (within 24 hours) Was swine waste applied to this field analysis figures and you Liquid Pit, Surface Applied Last year (Y/N)? N are using book values Lagoon, Incorporated (within 24 hours) Two years ago (Y/N)? N other than listed in "Manure" Lagoon, Surface Applied ** (lbs/ton) NOTES: Developed by: Kansas Departmentpartment of AgricAgricultureu and Kansassas State UniverUniversity.s For information contact: GarryGarry L. Keeler (785) 296-3786 (1.2) email: [email protected]@KDA.state.ks.ust Kansas New Swine Manure Regulations - 1999 22 “ Precipitation 30 “ Precipitation Maximum P Soil Test: 200 / 150ppm Bray P1 Mehlich 3 Maximum P Soil Test: 78 / 57 ppm Olsen 100 ppm Bray P1 or Maximum P Soil Test: Mehlich 3 150 / 100 ppm Bray P1 38 ppm Olsen Mehlich 3 57 / 38 ppm Olsen 22 “ Precipitation 30 “ Precipitation Kansas P Index • NRCS approach to P management • Under development/review • Difficult to identify data for development Kansas P Index •P Source – Soil test P – P fertilizer application rate and method – Organic P application rate and method •P Transport – Soil erosion – Soil runoff class – Distance to surface water or drainage way – Irrigation erosion Selected Value Bench Source Characteristics After Phosphorus Loss Rating mark Bray P1 or Mehlich III Soil Test Olsen Soil Test < 25 ppm < 16 ppm 1 Soil Test P 26 - 50 ppm 17 - 31 ppm 2 22 51 - 75 ppm 32 - 47 ppm 4 76 - 100 ppm 48 - 62 ppm 8 >100 ppm > 62 ppm 10 Annual Average Fertilizer P Lbs Fertilizer P2O5 Applied 20 20 Application Rate 0.10 X (lbs P2O5) 2.0 2.0 (lbs P2O5/ac) None applied 0 Starter applied at planting or injected deeper than 2 inches 1 11 Fertilizer P Application Broadcast AND incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug OR Method Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 2 hay and pasture land Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug (no residues or pasture) OR Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 4 hay and pasture land OR Broadcast AND incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June (no residue or pasture) Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sep-Oct and Mar-June 8 Annual Average Organic P Lbs P2O5 Applied Contained In Manure or Compost 070 Application Rate 0.10 X (lbs P2O5) 0.0 7.0 (lbs P2O5/ac) None applied 0 Starter applied at planting or injected deeper than 2 inches 1 Organic P Application Broadcast AND incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug OR Method Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 2 2 hay and pasture land Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug (no residues or pasture) OR Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 4 hay and pasture land OR Broadcast AND incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June (no residue or pasture) Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sep-Oct and Mar-June 8 June 2004 Total Source Value 5.0 14.0 Kansas P Index Source Components Phosphorus Application Calendar Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Placed with planter or subsurface applied at least 2 inches deep Broadcast and incorporated within 48 hours of application Broadcast and NOT incorporated with growing summer crop, standing residues, hay, or pasture Broadcast and NOT incorporated or incorporated more than 48 hours after application without growing summer crop or residues Best Phosphorus Application Good Phosphorus Application Management Practice 1 point Management Practice 2 points Poor-Fair Phosphorus Application Poor Phosphorus Application Management Practice 4 points Management Practice 8 points Kansas Site Assessment Index - Phosphorus Page 2 Selected Value Bench Transport After Characteristics mark Average From Ephemeral and Classic Gully 00 Soil Erosion by Water 2 X (tons/ac./yr.) 0.0 0.0 (tons/acre/year) Tons From RUSLE 1.5 1.5 2 X (tons/ac./yr.) 3.0 3.0 Soil Run-off Very Low 0 Classification Low 2 22 Medium 4 (From NRCS Kansas Map High Unit Descriptions) 8 Very High 16 Field not in proximity of intermittent stream 0 Within 300 feet of intermittent stream 2 Proximity of field to 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * perennial streams, * 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer perennial surface water 4 4 4 bodies or intermittent Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * streams Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * 8 Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - with effective buffer * Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - without effective buffer * 16 N/A 0 Furrow Irrigation Erosion QS is gallon/minute/furrow With tail water recovery, QS < 6 severe erodibility hazard soils and QS < 10 other soils 2 divided by the % slope. Soil QS > 10 for slight erodibility hazard soils 4 erodibility hazard factors are in Table 1. QS > 10 for moderate erodibility hazard soils 8 QS > 6 for severe erodibility hazard soils 16 N/A or little or no runoff indicated 0 Sprinkler System Erosion/Run-off LP on 0 to 3% slopes or HP on 0 to 8 % slopes for non-sandy sites or all sandy sites 2 22 (Sandy soils include all sands and loamy sands. HP on non-sandy sites > 8 % slope, and LP on non-sandy sites 3 to 5 % slopes 4 Non-sandy soils include all others (See Table 2). LP on non-sandy sites 5 to 8 % slopes 8 LP on non-sandy sites 8 % or steeper slopes 16 * Effective buffers are permanent vegatative buffers meeting NRCS standards Total Transport Value 11.0 11.0 X (From Page 1) Total Source Value 5.0 14.0 Total Transport Value X Total Source Value = P Loss Rating Value 55 154 VERY MEDIU P Loss Risk LOW M Kansas P Index Transport Components Proximity to surface streams and other surface water bodies --- Field not in proximity of intermittent stream 0 Within 300 feet of intermittent stream Proximity of field to 2 perennial streams, 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * perennial surface 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * water bodies or 4 intermittent streams Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * 8 Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - with effective buffer * Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - without effective buffer * 16 Kansas Phosphorus Site Index Management Interpretations P Loss Rating P Site Index Value Interpretation Management Suggestions 0 - 75 VERY LOW If current farming practices are continued and site characteristics do not change, there is low probability of an adverse impact to surface 76 - 150 LOW waters from P losses at this site.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housed Livestock, Manure Storage, Manure Processing Draft Section for a Guidance Document
    Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing Draft section for a Guidance Document Prepared by Barbara Amon and Lars Stoumann Jensen (session chairs) For discussion at the workshop on integrated sustainable nitrogen management, Brussels 30 September – 1 October 2019 This draft chapter to a planned Guidance Document on integrated sustainable nitrogen management has been prepared for the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen under the UNECE Air Convention, with support from the European Commission. The process of drafting the Guidance Document started in connection to a workshop “Towards joined-up nitrogen guidance for air, water and climate co-benefits”, hosted in Brussels, 11-12 October 2016. The current chapter draft is based on the results from that workshop and on discussions and developments since then. It will be presented and discussed in Brussels on 30 September – 1 October at a second workshop jointly organised by the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen and the European Commission. The content of the draft paper reflects the views only of the authors and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information. 2 Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing 1. Introduction and background 2. Why do we have emissions and how can they be influenced – the basics behind emission processes Nitrogen can take various forms (Fig. 1). Reactive nitrogen (Nr) includes all forms of nitrogen that are biologically, photochemically, and radiatively active. Compounds of nitrogen that are - - reactive include the following: nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrate (NO3 ), nitrite (NO2 ), ammonia + (NH3), and ammonium (NH4 ). Reactive forms of nitrogen are those capable of cascading through the environment and causing an impact through smog, acid rain, biodiversity loss, etc.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management Factsheet
    INDIANA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Helping People Help the Land. FACT SHEET Manure Management Properly managed manure can improve soil health, crop yields and reduce the risk of runoff to surface waters. June, 2014 Photo Source: IDEM NRCS works directly with farmers to manage NRCS ASSISTANCE Natural Resources manure as a valuable nutrient source in an BACKGROUND environmentally conscious manner. Properly NRCS helps farmers and landowners identify • Manure is a valuable fertilizer Conservation Service managed manure can improve soil health, natural resources concerns on their farm. containing varying amounts of nitrogen, crop yields, and reduce the risk of runoff to NRCS provides technical assistance at no cost phosphorus, potassium, micronutrients surface waters. to create a conservation plan and identify and organic matter, depending on conservation practices to address resource the livestock species and the manure MANURE MANAGEMENT concerns. handling and storage, as well as application methods. STANDARDS Practices may include nutrient application (590 standard) to address identified water quality • Manure is a cost-efficient form of Through a scientific planning process and or other concerns, or manure storage (313 and fertilizer for crops, that if managed and standards, NRCS works with farmers to 359 standards) to address an identified water applied correctly, can supply plant- address resource concerns on their farms. All quality, odor or other resource concern. nutrient needs and can enhance soil NRCS standards require
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land
    Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land Marc Ribaudo, Noel Gollehon, Marcel Aillery, Jonathan Kaplan, Robert Johansson, Jean Agapoff, Lee Christensen, Vince Breneman, and Mark Peters Chapter 1–Introduction Livestock and poultry manure can provide valuable sion affecting the potential for contamination of water organic material and nutrients for crop and pasture resources by manure nutrients (Mulla et al., 1999). growth. However, nutrients contained in animal manure can degrade water quality if they are over- Recent policies and programs for increasing the effi- applied to land and enter water resources through cient use of nutrients and protecting water quality from runoff or leaching. The nutrients of greatest water nutrient runoff all emphasize the importance of proper- quality concern are nitrogen and phosphorus. Animal ly handling animal manure. The Unified Strategy for waste is a source of both. Animal Feeding Operations, jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the A shift in the livestock and poultry industry over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999, past several decades toward fewer, larger operations states: “Land application is the most common, and has prompted public concern over the use and disposal usually most desirable method of utilizing manure of animal manure. Manure lagoon spills in North because of the value of the nutrients and organic mat- Carolina and pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks in North ter. Land application should be planned to ensure that Carolina and Maryland have raised public concerns the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied in a about the way manure is stored and handled.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems
    Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Issued December 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Acknowledgments Chapter 9 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direction of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil Conser- vation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). James D. Rickman (retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the development of the hand- book. Authors for chapter 9 included L.M. “Mac” Safley, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; William H. Boyd, environmental engineer, Lincoln, Nebraska; A.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Zoonotic Waterborne Pathogen Loads in Livestock
    3 Zoonotic waterborne pathogen loads in livestock Edward R. Atwill, Xunde Li, Delia Grace and Victor Gannon 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 Objectives This chapter provides an overview on the prevalence and environmental load of waterborne zoonotic pathogens of public health importance shed in the excreta of livestock. Chapter 2 presents the five zoonotic pathogens that will be reviewed in this book: Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia duodenalis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Campylobacter. These protozoa and bacteria are important disease-causing agents and satisfy the three criteria agreed to be classified as priority one waterborne zoonotic pathogens associated with livestock populations: capacity to induce clinical illness in susceptible humans, © 2012 World Health Organization (WHO). Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health. Edited by Al Dufour, Jamie Bartram, Robert Bos and Victor Gannon. ISBN: 9781780401232. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK. 74 Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health capability to be transmitted to humans through water, and prevalence in a biological reservoir host including one or more livestock species. A biological reservoir is defined as a host (in the context of this book: a livestock species) that allows the pathogen to amplify or reproduce and not merely pass through. Information on the prevalence, intensity and environmental load of these five pathogens is presented along with methodological concerns on how we draw inferences from these measures of occurrence and the human health risk they represent. Important aspects of the ecology and epidemiology of these five pathogens in livestock populations are also discussed in as much as they may be useful in the development of intervention strategies to limit their prevalence in livestock and to reduce the risks of waterborne transmission to humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management Guidelines Management Agency (WQMA) the WQMA
    Cayuga County Water Quality Management Agency March 2, 2017 Cayuga County Water Quality The Nutrient Working Group of Manure Management Guidelines Management Agency (WQMA) the WQMA Stephen Lynch, Chair Eileen O’Connor, Chair Eileen O'Connor , Vice-Chair Bob Brower Gary Duckett Nick Colas* Doug Kierst Brian Hall Bruce Natale Rick Nelson Doug Ververs Judy Wright Edward Wagner Jim Young Seth Jensen *Meeting facilitator and report editor Harry Hinman Jim Young The Nutrient Working Group also wishes Carl Wiezalis to thank the agricultural producers and INTRODUCTION Dale Powell consulting professionals who provided insightful comments on previous drafts Barbara Harvey of this document. In February of 2016 the Cayuga County Legislature voted to adopt a plan titled Bob Brower Improving Manure Management: A Fourteen-Point Countywide Agenda for Action. Kathleen Gorr The plan outlines actions the County can take to foster improvement of manure management practices and minimize the potential negative environmental impacts of manure runoff. While County officials are aware that it is necessary to examine all of the many possible sources of nutrient pollution, the adoption of the plan underscored the Legislature’s desire to focus attention on matters relating to manure as an im- portant immediate step in reaffirming its commitment to water quality. One of the tasks discussed in the Agenda for Action involves developing a set of specific manure management guidelines for the County to promote. The task of developing the guidelines was assigned to the County’s Water Quality Management Agency (WQMA). This document presents the results of the efforts of a working group of the WQMA to formulate guidelines intended to encourage progress through expanded voluntary use of proven, cost-effective methods, technologies, and tech- niques rather than force changes through legislation or rule-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Pollution from Agriculture: a Global Review
    LED BY Water pollution from agriculture: a global review Executive summary © FAO & IWMI, 2017 I7754EN/1/08.17 Water pollution from agriculture: a global review Executive summary by Javier Mateo-Sagasta (IWMI), Sara Marjani Zadeh (FAO) and Hugh Turral with contributions from Jacob Burke (formerly FAO) Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2017 and the International Water Management Institute on behalf of the Water Land and Ecosystems research program Colombo, 2017 FAO and IWMI encourage the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO and IWMI as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s and IWMI’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence- request or addressed to [email protected]. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/ publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]” © FAO and IWMI, 2017 Cover photograph: © Jim Holmes/IWMI Neil Palmer (IWMI) A GLOBAL WATER-QUALITY CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE Water pollution is a global challenge that has increased in both developed and developing countries, undermining economic growth as well as the physical and environmental health of billions of people.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
    CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.0 INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act requires EPA to consider a number of different factors when developing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for a particular industry category. These factors include the cost of achieving the effluent reduction, the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and factors the Administrator deems appropriate. One way EPA takes these factors into account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate classes of similar characteristics. The division of a point source category into groups called “subcategories” provides a mechanism for addressing variations among products, raw materials, processes, and other parameters that result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of a category by subcategory ensures that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations that take into account technology achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. The factors that EPA considered in the subcategorization of the CAFO point source category include: • Animal production processes • Waste management and handling practices • Wastes and wastewater characteristics • Waste use practices • Age of equipment and facilities • Facility size • Facility location EPA evaluated these factors and determined that
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Environmental Protection
    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection MANURE MANAGEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 361-0300-001 / November 15, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 361-0300-001 TITLE: Manure Management for Environmental Protection EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2001 AUTHORITY: 25 Pa. Code Chapter 91, Section 91.36 PURPOSE: Provides practices for livestock and poultry operations under which DEP approval or a permit is not required. Also, describes related requirements under the Nutrient Management Act and the Pennsylvania Strategy for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. APPLICABILITY: Describes technical practices for all livestock and poultry operations in Pennsylvania. IMPACT: The revision of this section of the Manure Management Manual updates and clarifies current requirements for livestock and poultry operations and provides a description of DEP approved practices. DISCLAIMER: The policies and procedures outlined in this guidance document are intended to supplement existing requirements. Nothing in the policies or procedures shall affect regulatory requirements. The policies and procedures herein are not an adjudication or a regulation. There is not intent on the part of DEP to give the rules in these policies that weight or deference. This document establishes the framework, within which DEP will exercise its administrative discretion in the future. DEP reserves the discretion to deviate
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Small Acreages
    Disposal Options 1. Dispose off-site to a landfill that accepts manure or hire someone to pickup and dispose of manure for you. Manure Management 2. Compost manure. This requires the right ratio of carbon (bedding or leaves) and nitrogen (manure). Try 30 carbon to 1 nitrogen by volume. Water to keep the pile 50% moist and aerate the pile for Small Acreages regularly. 3. Spread manure. Spread in spring or summer. Test manure for nutrient content and spread based on soil test recommendations. This will ensure the nutrients are being utilized by the vegetation growing. Unused nutrients can pollute water bodies and ground- water. Remember that raw manure may contain weed seeds which will be spread back on the land. Estimated Horse Manure Application Rates* • Dryland range: 1 ton/ac/yr • Irrigated alfalfa: 5-10 tons/ac/yr *Test manure for nutrient content and spread based on soil test. Use a thermometer to monitor the temperature of your compost. For more information on manure and composting, visit http://sam.extension.colostate.edu/ www.co.nrcs.usda.gov http://sam.extension.colostate.edu/ USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. July 2018 Why Manage Manure? Manure Management Goals: 1. Utilize manure nutrients for enhancing soil. Constituents of Animal Waste 2. Protect the health and safety of the public and livestock. -Pathogenic organisms 3. Prevent surface and ground water contamination. -Organic matter -Heavy metals -Salts Best Management Practices (BMPs) -Micronutrients (Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Zn, Cu) 1. Divert clean water away from manure: -Potassium • Construct berms, terraces or waterways, and/or use downspouts to divert -Phosphorus clean water away from corrals and manure storage areas.
    [Show full text]
  • TWP) Is an Update of the Soils and Manure Literature Reviews (Sections I and J) Completed in 1999 by the University of Minnesota
    Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Animal Agriculture in Minnesota Topics I & J Soils and Manure Issues Technical Team Members coleaders John F. Moncrief and Paul R. Bloom Neil C. Hansen Hero T. Gollany Morteza Mozaffari Lowell M. Busman Chuck J. Clanton Dave R. Schmidt Adam S. Birr Dave J. Mulla Peter D. Gessel Mike P. Russelle Debra Eliason Morse, technical editor Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................ 2 - 8 Literature Review update.............................. 9 - 29 Current Research............................................ 30 - 49 Manure and Pathogens................................. 50 - 78 Phosphorus Index for Minnesota................. 79 - 97 Storage and Handling.................................... 98 - 110 Trends and Policy........................................... 111 - 122 1 Executive Summary Animal production is growing in Minnesota and animal densities are increasing. There are two main driving forces at work when manure utilization is considered. One is "on farm" profitability and the other is the negative "down stream" impacts. At times economic and environmental quality goals are competing. This Manure and Soils report addresses the value of manure as well the possible negative environmental effects of the use of manure on cropland. Manure value, costs, economic forces, and water quality Manure can be a valuable resource in a crop production system. Manure contains the macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) and also contains numerous micronutrients. The nutrient value of manure for crop production depends on the site-specific reserve of plant available soil nutrients, the nutrient concentrations in manure, and the nutrient demands of the crop. In many areas of Minnesota soil levels of P and most micronutrients are already at adequate levels. In some soils K is also adequate for crop production.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds September 2012
    Nutrient Management Technical Note No. 9 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service September 2012 Introduction to Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds September 2012 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, partici- pating in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives financial assistance from USDA, you may file a complaint with USDA. Information about how to file a discrimina- tion complaint is available from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) To file a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign, and mail a program discrimination complaint form, available at any USDA office location or online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate office or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, em- ployer, and lender.
    [Show full text]